Calcutta High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Brutal Murder Case
The Calcutta High Court delivered a significant ruling on Thursday, firmly rejecting a plea to reduce the life sentence of a convict who murdered his extramarital partner. The court dismissed the argument that the convict had "suffered enough for 12.5 years for a soured extramarital relationship", emphasizing the gravity of the premeditated crime.
Details of the Case and Court's Reasoning
Saroj Roy, also known as Sushanta, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on December 9, 2019, for the murder of his extramarital partner. He was also fined Rs 50,000. The court highlighted that not only did the victim endure a troubled extramarital relationship, but the convict also meticulously planned the offence to end her life. This premeditation was a key factor in the court's decision to uphold the sentence.
Background of the Relationship and Murder
Roy, a married man with a child, had been involved in an extramarital relationship with the victim for nearly seven years. Reports indicate he was dissatisfied with both his wife and his partner. In a diary entry, Roy explicitly wrote that if his partner continued to pressure him into marriage, he would kill her and then commit suicide. This chilling plan materialized on September 26, 2013.
On that fateful morning, while on his way to work, Roy visited the victim's house in Patuli at 7:30 AM. As the victim's mother was in the bathroom, she overheard a heated argument between the couple, followed by a piercing shriek from her daughter. Rushing out, she discovered her daughter lying in a pool of blood, with Roy unconscious nearby, both suffering from injuries. A kitchen knife was found at the scene.
Medical Evidence and Legal Arguments
The victim succumbed to her injuries at a government hospital, having sustained 11 stab wounds to vital organs, including her heart and lungs, leading to severe blood loss from arterial damage. Forensic experts confirmed that the handwriting in the diary note, detailing the murder threat, matched Roy's, solidifying the evidence against him.
During the appeal, Roy's counsel argued that the crime should be classified under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, pertaining to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, framing it as an act driven by "passion and emotion". However, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court firmly rejected this contention.
Court's Emphasis on Premeditation
The bench pointed out that Roy's actions demonstrated clear forethought. He documented his intent to kill in his diary and brought a kitchen knife to the victim's residence, which the court described as "extremely unusual for a person" in such circumstances. These acts collectively indicated a high degree of premeditation, undermining the defense's claim of a crime of passion.
In its ruling, the court underscored that such deliberate planning warranted the strictest penalty, thereby affirming the life sentence. This decision reinforces the judiciary's stance on holding individuals accountable for premeditated violent crimes, particularly in cases involving intimate partner violence.
